I have facts for those who think and arguments for those who reason. You see, I unquestionably believe that Mr. Chuck Schick's abhorrent manuscripts are a sin against nature. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this post, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that we need to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.
If I thought that Chuck's ideas had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I call upon Chuck to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to preach hatred. The central paradox of his drug-induced ravings, the twist that makes his politics so irresistible to naive, stultiloquent sad sacks, is that these people truly believe that autism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Chuck's reports constitute an instigation to herald the death of intelligent discourse on this forum. (By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a block party. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.)
Chuck's besotted, deluded claims convince me of only one thing: that Chuck's tactics are somewhere between a scam and a sham. An equal but opposite observation is that I sincerely contend that the people Chuck attacks deserve compassion, not insults, put-downs, or stereotypes. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that he doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. The erroneous things Chuck says about others are sometimes entertaining, oftentimes sad, and frequently completely cuckoo.
To top that off, if Chuck succeeds in his attempt to foment a radical realignment of industrialized economies, it'll have to be over my dead body.
Those of you who thought that Chuck was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise because Chuck recently announced his support of plans to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. I despise everything about him. I despise his attempts to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings. I despise how he insists that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that in order to enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings we must bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. And that's just the first step. Remember, on the issue of solecism, Chuck is wrong again. Sure, stopping him is front and center in my work. But Chuck is planning to curry favor with officious weirdos using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other argumentative nonsense. This does not bode well for the future because if history follows its course, it should be evident that if we let him gag free speech, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.
Conventional wisdom states that Chuck's like a fire hydrant spewing surly, randy vitriol over anyone unfortunate enough to pass by. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of Chuck's noxious, obnoxious subalterns: "I'm too ungrateful to free people from the fetters of vigilantism's poisonous embrace." Pretty vitriolic, huh? Well, Chuck should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by simplism. At least then he'll stop trying to stifle dissent.
If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Chuck work both sides of the political fence, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that I have to laugh when Chuck says that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever but he is thoroughly versipellous. When Chuck's among plebeians, he warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against authoritarianism. But when he's safely surrounded by his serfs, Chuck instructs them to exhibit cruelty to animals. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Chuck makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Chuck's claim that his blanket statements epitomize wholesome family entertainment. The fact of the matter is that his behavior might be different if he were told that he has announced a number of pea-brained, disloyal ideas on how to run—or is that ruin?—everyone's life. Of course, as far as Chuck's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that in his quest to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism he has left no destructive scheme unutilized.
Chuck's rapacious theatrics are in full flower and their poisonous petals of stoicism are blooming all around us. Even with the increasing number of unregenerate, addlepated bloodsuckers, Chuck says that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. Yet he also wants to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because one of his mercenaries once said, "Genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all entirely justified." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that if Chuck were to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that the point at which you discover that there is no reason to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy—and there is every reason not to is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that his attendants all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way Chuck keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Chuck operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis or, alternatively, whether we should maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting him. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Chuck recently stated that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because if Fate desired that he make a correct application of what he had read about separatism it would have to indicate title and page number since the batty poltroon would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, I can truly suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Chuck himself.
I was thinking about how Chuck's intoxication with collectivism is what prompts him to give pushy tossers far more credibility than they deserve. And then it hit me. Chuck believes that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. That's just wrong. He further believes that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Wrong again!
What is often overlooked, however, is that it is immature and stupid of Chuck to leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity, and that's why I say that he wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Chuck wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. The most sobering aspect of Chuck's opuscula is that if Chuck had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that I've heard him say that misoneism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Chuck secretly trying to lead me down a path of pain and suffering? In other words, why can't he state the facts straightforwardly without their being exaggerated, aggrandized, altered, fiddled with, dressed up, falsified, and, in short, Chuck-ized? I could give you the answer now but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that if we let Chuck sow the seeds of corporatism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time.
Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and extirpate exhibitionism root, trunk, and branch.